The $1000 Scientific Evidence Challenge

NEW: There is now a challenge deadline
of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014 for the challenge. All submissions will
be posted with my response no later than the end of the day September
30, 2014.

I have put my money where my mouth is in the past. I made the $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge
where I said that I would pay $10,000 to anyone proving, via the
scientific method, that man made climate change is not real. So far,
there has not been any takers. Lots of people have looked at the
challenge, but apparently the deniers aren't as sure of themselves as
they claim to be.

Well, I have also stated that there
is no scientific evidence refuting the conclusion that man made
emissions are responsible for, at least, the majority of climate change,
and is most like responsible for all of it. So, I am now making a new
challenge to climate change deniers - the $1000 Scientific Evidence
Challenge. I will pay $1000 to the first person to show there is any
scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion of man made climate
change.

The rules are simple and are the same as for the $10,000 challenge:

1.I will award $1,000 of my own money to anyone that can show there is
valid scientific evidence indicating man made global warming is not
real. It doesn't have to prove man made global warming is not real, it just
needs to be valid scientific evidence against it;

2. There is no entry fee;

3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;

4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be
first;

5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my
comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

Simple,
right? In fact, if you listen to the skeptics I will have to be writing
a check within a day or two because they all claim 'the science isn't
settled.' Fine! Prove it! Are you telling me you wouldn't like to take
$1000 from someone that advocates global warming is real?

This
is not a joke and it isn't a bluff. If someone can provide any valid
scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not real, then I
will write them a check.

But,
I am sure my money is safe. I would not have made this challenge if I
didn't already know the answer. The scientific evidence for global
warming is overwhelming and the only way you can believe otherwise is if
you reject science.

Any takers?

NOTE: I have to wonder why none of the deniers have taken advantage of my offer. After all, they claim it is so easy. I have addressed this issue in one of my postings.

The first challenge is to prove the negative, that "man made climate change is not real", the second asks for "any scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion of man made climate change", the second is possible where the first impossible.

There has never been an experimental test, demonstration, trial or example of climate change mitigation, there isn't any experimental evidence we can do anything to mitigate climate change. Nor have we any experimental tests of man made climate change. The total lack of experiments shows climate change mitigation is a hoax and people who label skeptics, "deniers" practice pseudoscience, not the scientific method.

There is lots of scientific evidence and scientific experimentation demonstrating man made global warming is real. In fact, there is a massively overwhelming amount. I'm not sure what you are going for here. The debate isn't about mitigation - the dealing with the issue. The challenge is about denier claims that AGW is not real and that it is easy to prove it. So, prove it. It is certainly not pseudoscience to hold someone accountable for their statements. I am providing a venue and possible pay out for someone that can deliver on their claim.

There are many debates, including mitigation. The challenge involves another debate - Is man made global warming real?

I really hate doing the homework for deniers. If you don't believe what the scientists tell you and you don't care enough to do your own homework, but here are some examples from refereed journals. There are lots more where these came from:

Make the check out to me, email ts_young_29@yahoo.com. My evidence? Wikipedia, a reliable non political source. 80% of Earth's recent geologic past has been in a 'greenhouse earth' climate ie where glacier ice did not exist anywhere on the surface year round. So our current 'ice house earth' climate is actually an exceptionally cool statistical anomaly. Not 'proof' that our emissions have nothing to do with climate BUT certainly good solid scientific evidence that a warmer climate is normal and that warming and cooling happen quite naturally without our help.

What's the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation?

Climate change mitigation makes climatology an experimental science. David Appel claimed "It's an observational science", but that changes once you start advocating a scheme to save our planet. All you've got to do is provide the experimental data.

In the meantime, we'll wait until science catches up to the climate change mitigation hype.

For ProperNoun above (June 25, 2014 at 5:54 AM), I really don't know what I would consider to be the most compelling experiment about climate change mitigation. If we can simply reduce our fossil fuel emissions to the point that the CO2 level is not increasing, then the climate will stabilize where it is. If we can reduce it to the point that CO2 levels decrease, then the environment will start cleaning itself. That is the mitigation I would pursue. We can decrease our fossil fuel consumption and increase our standard of living at the same time.

Chris,I gave you valid scientific evidence which, by its very nature (pun intended) refutes the idea that warming is caused by man. The earth is NORMALLY much hotter than now, which supports the antithetical argument....that any current warming trend is natural. The requirement was that I produce valid scientific evidence indicating AGW is not real... proof wasnt required. Unless you deny that the evidence is valid or that it indicates AGW is not real, you owe me a thousand bucks. Email ts_young_29@yahoo.com for address to send the check to.

I'm sorry, but your very statement is not true and there is a plethora of data to prove it. The Earth, at least is the last 800,000 years, has NOT been normally hotter than today. That is the first false statement. The next issue is any kind of proof that past periods of warmth/cold has anything to do with today's warming trend. All the evidence shows there is no such connection.

Sorry, your evidence is not valid. You are welcome to address those problems I mentioned and resubmit it.

For the two anonymous comments, you cannot just pull something out that you believe in but has not scientific credibility and call it proof. Well, you can, but no one with a rationale mind has to agree with you.

As for 'geologic history', if you are not happy with the way I interpreted that, then resubmit. I'll give you fair warning though, if you really want to compare today's climate with something billions of years ago that will not pass the challenge. Comparing today to a previous era when so many major changes have occurred in the interim is meaningless. I gave you a break. If I had insisted on using billions of years your submission would have been tossed without further ado.

I souced wikipedia, who has proper citations listed. You are just being lazy, rssting on your own incorrect opinion. I can and did cite past climate as evidence. It is far more likely that something which has happened before (natural changes in climate) will happen again than that something which has never happened before(man made climate change) will happen for the first time. You dispute the comparison to the past....yet what else can we compare with? Computer models? Perhaps the models are more accurate but to automatically discount the past is simply bad science. It is valid scientific evidence. I am thru argueing. Either pay up or I will see you in court

You are straw-manning your own challenge. You begin by referring to "the conclusion that man made emissions are responsible for, at least, the majority of climate change, and is most like responsible for all of it." You then demand people provide "valid scientific evidence indicating man made global warming is not real." The two are not remotely the same.

Here's a thought. Maybe the reason people aren't responding to your challenges is your challenges are incoherent. In another post, you demanded people prove "man-made global climate change is not occurring." That's impossible to prove. Climate involves a lot more than temperature. Nobody could ever hope to prove humans don't affect it on a global scale.

That challenge, taken literally, would require people prove humans don't increase global CO2 levels as CO2 levels are part of our climate. I assume that's not what you intend, but how can anyone know? Your own remarks aren't consistent. Nobody could possibly hope to know what they're expected to prove.

Why in the world would people try to meet a challenge which is incoherent and described inconsistently? It's not like anyone could possibly expect to win a challenge judged by a person who can't even say what the challenge is.

The challenge is far from incoherent. Deniers claim man made climate change is not real and that it is easy to prove. Fine! Prove it! What could be easier? Unless, of course, deniers have been lying all this time?

You must not have read the challenge. The challenge is in response to claims by deniers that man made global warming is not real and that it is easy to prove. I am merely providing a venue and possible payout for deniers to do what they claim is so easy. If, as you say, it can't be done, then why do deniers keep saying it can be done easily?

As for a strawman (the denier phrase de jour), you are the one introducing a strawman by trying to change the challenge. The challenge is very simple and is as open for the deniers as I can make it. I agree with you that it can't be done. I just want everyone else to see that the deniers are lying when they make their claim.

CO2 is a water soluble gas who’s solubility is drastically affected by temperature. Cold liquid holds more CO2 than hot liquid (proof: open a cold carbonated beverage, then open a warm one, and the warm one will fizz more). Is it not possible that the correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels is because when the weather cools, more CO2 is dissolved into the oceans, thus causing the correlation?

The solubility of CO2 in the oceans is a major factor in the whole global warming equation. As you said, CO2 is more soluble in cool liquids than in hot ones. Right now, the oceans are the major absorber of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is OK as long as we are talking about naturally produced CO2. But, as we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount that is absorbed by the oceans is also increased, increasing the alkalinity of the oceans. As the temperature continues to rise the oceans' ability to absorb CO2 will decrease.

So, the ocean acts as a sink of CO2. How well that sink works is variable. So, the answer to your question is that the oceans are a significant player in the cycles of climate change, naturally occurring one or man made ones.

Climate models do not account for the heat transfered to the ocean from the Earth's interior. Innumerable thermal vents are known to exist on the ocean floor and the ocean floor is known to be the thinest part of the crust. This heat transfer has been completely dismissed. It's not science at all when you draw conclusions from inaccurate assumptions. Please make my $1000 check payable to Vance McElmurry.

I'm sorry to be rude Christopher, but what kind of juvenile reply is this? I think you responded with this because you have no evidence to refute my claim above. If you had you would have supplied a link to it. There is your evidence. Please pay up.

You have made a claim. You have provided no evidence that the claim is real. You have provided no evidence that the claim has anything to do with global warming, man made or natural. You have provided no evidence that your claim refutes man made global warming. This is an example of why I insisted that the proofs be via the scientific method. I can hear those kinds of claims in a bar at closing time. It doesn't mean there's anything to it. It is your responsibility, by the terms of my challenge, to prove your claim via the scientific method.

My claim is a fact that is documented in the models' published input data sets. I was not prepared for you to claim ignorance about the workings of climate models and their role in "proving" global warming.

I am shocked that you would characterize my reference to the fact that heat transferred to the ocean from the Earth's interior is neglected when estimating the ocean's heat budget as a grandiose statement. Perhaps you are actually unaware that your global warming conclusions are based on data that neglects such a critical and dynamic component.Here's were the University of Hawaii states the fact explicitly:ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/nosal/ORE603/ORE603_06HeatBudget_AtmosphericCirc.pdfHere's a link to the development guide for the CSIM component of the CCSM, used by the IPCC in its last report. http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/csim/RefGuide/ice_refdoc.pdfTable 2 lists the fluxes and states passed to the coupler.

There you go, challenge conquered. Your global warming conclusion is based on data from computer simulations that do not model reality.It is surprising that you were not aware of the specifics of climate models.

No, you are wrong. Deniers have decided to make models the issue as if climate science is just a model. No, that is not correct. Climate science is about the actual climate, separate from anything we do in the lab. We are talking about real world measurements, real world data, real world experiments and real world results. Models merely help us to understand the natural laws governing the real world. They are not a substitute for the real world.

Dr. Keating, I am sorry for my rude comments above. Please accept my apology.Relating warming to variations in atmospheric gases is the exclusive domain of computer models. These models are the ONLY "evidence" used to support the charge that so-called observed warming is attributable to human activities. That's what we are discussing here. You asked for "any scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion of man made climate change". I have done that by demonstrating that other potential causes are neglected in order to arrive at the conclusion that man made gases are to blame. I have refuted the conclusion.I contend that "the [CONCLUSION] of man made climate change" is a result of modeling the 'theory' that gasses are responsible. You reach the conclusion of a cause by ruling out other causes, in this case by modeling with assumptions on how one thing follows another; e.g. the atmosphere warms the ocean than the Earth may warm the ocean which may contribute more water vapor to the atmosphere, etc.Are you saying that "the conclusion of man made climate change" is reached without models?

I have said it before, but will say it again. Climate science is not about modeling. Climate science is about understanding the actual, real-world events going on in our climate. Global warming, droughts, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, cold waves, ENSO, etc., none of these things are sitting around waiting for a computer model to them what to do. We are trying to understand all of these things (and a lot more). Computer models are one tool we use. So are ice cores. So are thermometers. So are satellites. So are sonobouys. So are weather balloons. So are many other things. Deniers have focused on modeling and promulgated a bunch of false statements about them in an attempt to fool people that climate science is all about models. That is not a true statement. Much of the work is done with no models at all. And, the models are much more accurate than denier organizations want people to believe.

And, yes, I can definitively state that we can reach the conclusion of the reality of man made global warming without computer models. Take a look at this webpage. The data and graphics do not use computer models. It is real world:

Your challenge is not about refuting all so-called measurements. (Satellite radar altimetry data relies heavily on atmospheric water content models, but that's another discussion.) (As if a measurement proves its own cause, anyway.) Your challenge is to show scientific evidence that refutes the conclusion that global warming is manmade. I have done that by simply showing that your conclusion is based on the assumption that heat transferred to the ocean from the Earth is not accounted for. I showed you scientifically that it has been omitted. Since you do not know what role the Earth plays in the system, you can not conclude that you have found the cause.Like Gavin Schmidt once said during an Intelligence Squared debate"Once you start making logically fallacious arguments in order to support a predetermined position, you are no longer acting as a scientist, you are acting as a lawyer, however scientific sounding you might seem."You know I have fulfilled your challenge.

Heat from ocean floor is responsible for heating the cold deep sea currents, which causes them to rise. This process is very slow (time scale of centuries) but it does happen and that heat is most assuredly included into the calculations. It would be difficult for the ocean currents to perform the way they do without that heat from Earth's interior passing through the ocean floor.

So, what we find is that you are the one making the "logically fallacious argument in order to support a predetermined position". You based all of your conclusions on the idea that this heat from Earth's interior is not included. When I showed you that it is, you refused to accept it. That is the definition of religion.

That's nonsense Dr. Keating. You can't just make things up in order to not lose. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor1.htmlYou can't try to claim that it has been included in the conclusion that so-called global warming is manmade. I have showed you that it is not included, both by the University of Hawaii and at ucar.edu and the link above to NOAA shows that the claim in your last reply about the deep sea currents is made up by you.Therefore, your conclusion is shown to be wrong.

This is why so many scientists won't talk to deniers. Let put it in terms that, hopefully, even you can understand:

Heat conducting through the ocean floor slowly heats the deep ocean currents, causing them to rise. This heating is critical for ocean currents - they will not work without this heating. All models require a realistic ocean, including the ocean currents. So, all models include currents and current require heat conducing through the sea floor. QED: heat conducting through the sea floor is included in models.

If you can't accept this explanation, there is nothing more I can do for you.

"Heat conducting through the ocean floor slowly heats the deep ocean currents, causing them to rise."

Wrong answer Dr. Keating. That is a fabrication from your own mind, and you know it. I provided you a link to a NOAA site that proves you are making that up. You're lying to try to save face because you have been beaten. I will copy and post your claims elsewhere and we'll see what real scientists have to say about your lies. Plus we'll get a lot of input when I post this on www.isitbullshit.com.

Dr. Keating wrote: "I really don't know what I would consider to be the most compelling experiment about climate change mitigation."

- Instead of doing the experimental work, call skeptics "deniers" , is that good science?

.

Dr. Keating wrote: "If we can simply reduce our fossil fuel emissions to the point that the CO2 level is not increasing, then the climate will stabilize where it is."

- So, mitigation is the experiment and without the consent of the subjects its unethical. Aren't you supposed to do the experimental work first, then go to the public to present the data before we adopt full scale mitigation? Do you have any experiments showing man can "stabilize" climate?

.

Dr. Keating wrote: "If we can reduce it to the point that CO2 levels decrease, then the environment will start cleaning itself."

- When did the environment stop cleansing itself?

.

Dr. Keating wrote: "That is the mitigation I would pursue. We can decrease our fossil fuel consumption and increase our standard of living at the same time."

Why don't you show us how to mitigate climate change and raise your standard of living? Until you can publish experiments showing mitigation will do any good or cost less than the problem, I'll adapt to climate change, like I've always done.

If scientists can't cite compelling experiments for their mitigation scheme then the problem isn't the lack of a climate tax.

For some reason you have elected to make this challenge all about mitigation and that is not what it is about. Considering how you want to sit around and argue semantics, I have lost interest in discussing it with you. You are still welcome to submit your comments.

I am a poor college student that needs the 1,000 dollar reward. I do believe that man made Global Warming is real, but I can present evidence against it, because all scientific theories have unsolved problems, and there are no absolute certainties in science. Here are two papers that are skeptical about man made Global Warming. You can look at the data presented in the Papers. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098847298000471http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008465/full

If you think the papers make good points, please contact me because I will need the 1,000 dollar reward.

4. This implies omniscience (i.e. an a priori knowledge of all possible evidence), which scientifically impossible for the human brain. (We could also find an omniscience counterexample relatively easily.)

6. Therefore both you and I have rejected science by claiming omniscience and denying climate change, respectively.

7. We are both working from outside the framework of science, and you “are the final judge of all entries.”

9. I believe you will find this evidence irrefutable from within the framework we have established. As a side note, I have simultaneously established string theory and provided a recipe for delicious wiener schnitzel!

Sorry, I do refute it. The reason I can prove I am sincere is because I am posting all submissions with my comments. Now, of course, a denier is going to reject my answer simply because they reject science. But, I am confident you will not be able to find any serious scientific flaws in my reviews. Maybe in your head, but not in the reality.

Hokay. So the suns cycle already has been mentioned in the $10,000 challenge but not the relationship to global warming. As far as I know there is a strong correlation between sun activity, especially magnetic activity, and temperature on earth. It basically works like that: In times of high magnetic sun activity there goes a lot of condensation on in the atmosphere, just like in a "spark chamber" ( sorry if that's not the correct term, I'm not a native speaker ), thus there is a larger amount of cloud forming and therefore cooling. When the magnetic activity is low on the other hand there are less clouds and there is more warming. Because sunspots correlate to this kind of activity one can measure those and correlate them nicely to our climate in a delayed matter as explained by Friis-Christensen, Svensmark and Lassen here: http://kbar.sitecore.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf

Does this completely rule out humans as a factor? Absolutely not, because that would interfere with thermodynamics. But is there still some possibility left that it is not the main factor driving this change? I would say yes.

So this absolutely is evidence for doubt about human made global warming.

That would be DOGE 3,714,434.29 to DTGTk1coJWZ9F8e8QBD7xv3yDKD8RqpVim please.

Absolutely not evidence. Yes, the solar activity is a major player in climate change over the course of planetary history. The problem with that argument is that solar activity has been in decline for decades. If your argument was true, we would be in global cooling, not global warming.

Okay, then please present the data correlating increase in solar activity with increased temperatures on earth. The articles linked provide a profound view on another relationship of those factors.

Apparantly the problem in this challenge is that it is futile to even try to come up with reason and scientific evidence as some people not willing to change their minds. Every single discussion is based on the willingness of the other side to accept reason and data in order to change ones opinion or rethink it. I'm totally willing to accept the fact that humanity might be the biggest factor in global warming. But unless there is sufficient prove to seperate one theory from the other there is no reason to believe it to be the sole reason.

Also there are books to sell and opinions to be formed. I can understand the reasons. But this ultimately makes this challenge look like fraud for some people.

Yes, the solar activity has varied over time. In particular, it was much more active up until the 1950s. If you look at the global surface temperature record, you will see that the average temperature was higher then. The activity started to decline and so did the average temperature. Is today's activity higher than during some periods in the past? Sure. But, it is lower than recent times and the temperature was declining along with the declining activity until in the late 1970s. The global average surface temperature then began to rise, even though the solar activity continued to decrease. In fact, the alarmist are saying this is evidence we are heading into a new mini-ice age and global warming isn't something we should even be talking about.

You mentioned in a previous post that using a trend from 1988 to the present (almost two decades) is not valid because the time interval is too short to establish a trend, yet you mention here as a rebuttal that solar activity has been in decline for "decades" and use that to say we should be in a global cooling. Which is it? When trends using 20 years show something against you, they are using too short of a time period, but when they support what you say, they are fine?

If you say that the recent period of non-warming is not evidence of a trend, then it has to be assumed that the CO2 concentrations is not even close to the largest factor of warming, since the CO2 emissions have not decreased and have actually increased during that time period. If the oceans are absorbing this energy, then why did they not absorb it during the observed warming periods? Trying to prove that global warming is NOT caused by humans relies on the idea that global warming being caused by humans has been proven to be true, and it has not. None of the predictions that were based on the theory that global warming was caused by humans have been anywhere near accurate when applied to observed data after the predictions. So your whole challenge is impossible. I could ask you to disprove that global warming is due to fluctuations in a parallel universe and you could not do it. In fact, you would need solid proof that what I was saying existed before you could even start to disprove it. Likewise, it is impossible to disprove global warming is caused by man when there is no irrefutable proof that it is caused by man. If all of the factors that caused global warming were known, then the recent pause would have been predicted and even expected. What is disingenuous of the global warming crowd is to say that each trend in warming is proof of AGW, but any trend in cooling is meaningless.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. It may be possible (I seriously doubt it) that something other than increased greenhouse gasses, released by humans, are causing the observed warming. But you also have to demonstrate that it actually is so. After all it could be changes in albedo or a unnoticed cosmic change of the laws of thermodynamics. Or intervention by God. Or some unkown form of radiation or interaction with black matter. But you have to not only suggest an alternative, you also have to provide scientific evidence that shows that it is actually true.

To suggest that a recent increase in solar activity is the cause is weak, since there is no such recent increase, but a very slight decrease.

Actually, that is not what I said. What I have said consistently is that deniers refuse to inclue 93% of the planet when they want to talk about "global warming" - the oceans. If you want to cherry pick the data, you can prove anything. Why do deniers consistently refuse to discuss ocean warming?

Christopher,disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model -http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg- The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” in occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don't work on semi transparent surfaces and they don't work on materials cooled by evaporation.

And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.

All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question -“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”

The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.

So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.

Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments -http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpgI have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 -http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg

Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.

But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren't they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.

So what is the difference between a “near blackbody” and a “selective surface”, and why does it matter? Here we will cover empirical experiments dealing with semi-transparent selective surfaces.

Are you seated comfortably Christopher? Then let's begin, let's begin ...in 1965. In 1965, researchers at Texas A&M were experimenting with solar storage ponds. While “salt gradient” won the day, some initial research was into freshwater evaporation constrained ponds -http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg- They found an interesting thing. Despite making layer 2 matt black and absorbing more SW and UV, the pond didn't heat as well. Layer 2 clear and layer 3 black worked far better. If layer 2 was black, they found temperatures just millimetres below could be 30C lower than surface. If there was no DWLWIR on such a solar pond with layer 2 matt black, then average surface temperature would indeed be -18C. But layer 2 clear and layer 3 black is a game changer. Without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax would top 80C.

Let's examine SW selective surfaces a little further -http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpgHere is the experiment being run under intermittent SW simulating diurnal cycle -http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg

The experiment is simple. Expose both blocks to equal SW radiation. Say about 1000 w/m2 for three hours. Block A now has a higher average temperature by about 20C. Try again with 1000 w/m2 of IR. No average temperature difference. Both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, the same ability to absorb both SW and IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. And for materials with slow internal non-radiative transport this matters a lot.

But acrylic blocks in that experiment are static. No convective circulation. Maybe that will save AGW? No -http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpgHere two insulated matt black tubs of water are used. One tub has clear water, the other water dyed black so light will not visibly penetrate 2mm depth. Exposed to SW, tub A with the clear water reaches the higher average temperature, and the higher surface temperature.

Christopher, there is no way around it. The selective surface effect is what is keeping the oceans 33C above theoretical blackbody temp of -18C not DWLWIR as claimed by the Church of Radiative Climastsrology.

So there you have it Christopher, the proof, via the scientific method of empirical experiment, showing that AGW is a physical impossibility. DWLWIR cannot be slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. Due to the selective surface effect of transparent water exposed to SW, the sun alone has the power to heat the oceans to 80C or beyond, were it not for atmospheric cooling. And the atmosphere as you know has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Therefore global warming due to human emissions of CO2 is a physical impossibility, because the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere of our ocean planet is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

Here's the simple facts of climate on our planet, Planet Ocean. -

The sun heats the oceans.The atmosphere cools the oceans.Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.

Just think Christopher, if you had spent $5000 on building this -http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg- you might have been $25,000 better off.

The good news is that paying out $30,000 USD to end the whole AGW thing and getting back to real environmental problems is a bargain.

I am guessing the comment problem relates to overload of the “blogger” format blogsite. Wordpress seems to cope better with extensive threads/comments, but I'm guessing you are stuck with the current format for now.

I understand you have already attracted an extensive backlog of material to reply to, however If required I can furnish further photos of experiments conducted and build details for a further support experiment into the difference between apparent (0.95) and effective (<0.8) IR emissivity of liquid water.

Yes, I have come to the conclusion that the problem is with Blogger and, yes, I am stuck. They said unlimited number of comments were allowed. They didn't say the pages would show them all. As I delete irrelevant or duplicate comments, new ones appear. Also, they always appear in the my comment management tab. So, they are not getting lost. Lessons learned for the future.

Christopher,here are some photos of some of the actual build of some of the experiment diagrams shown -

A model solar pond replicating the work from Texas A&M in 1965 -http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg

Selective surface experiment 1 -http://i57.tinypic.com/esrb86.jpg

A diagram showing why Block A gets hotter with SW exposure -http://i61.tinypic.com/242a6b7.jpg(Block B immediately re-radiates much absorbed SW as IR before it can conduct into the block.)

Selective surface experiment 2 -http://i60.tinypic.com/259byj6.jpg

Effective / apparent IR emissivity check for water -http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg(I am working on a safer version for others to replicate. Due to the speed needed to avoid conductive coupling and the -40C liquid involved, the current version has operator risks.)

IR measurement for water has two confounding problems. The first is Holdraum effect, where the water is reflection environmental IR, but because it is from within the first 100 microns, it appears as emission. This is what the shown experiment is minimising using a cryo cooled “sky”. -40C is sufficient to determine that the effective (not apparent) IR emissivity of water is below 0.8.

The second problem is cavity effect, known to engineers doing thermography. Cavity effect is far more difficult to eliminate as water is radiating IR, not from the surface, but from within the first 100 microns. Military research into multi-spectral imaging involves using thin films of water below 100 microns to quantify cavity effect for water, but the setup is beyond my price range :(

The oceans being a UV/SW “selective surface” rather than a “near blackbody” is the simplest empirical disproof of AGW. As a side note, this brings solar influence on climate back into play. When treating the oceans as a “near blackbody” the influence of a minor 0.1% variation in TSI can be dismissed. However when the selective surface effect is considered the more marked solar variation in the higher frequencies that penetrate below the oceans diurnal overturning layer becomes important. Energy absorption variations below this layer can become cumulative.

I have scientific evidence that man made global warming is not real. Technically, it is both real AND not real. This is because we live in a universe of both duality and unity, which is explained in scientific texts like the Yoga Sutras, the Upanishads, and the Phenomenology of Spirit. Western scientific reductionism generally ignores this perspective, except for quantum physics, the scientists at the Institute for Noetic Sciences, and new books (with the science) like The Conscious Universe, The Field, and The Holographic Universe.

Quantum physics turns reality and objectivity on its head. It allows for a simultaneous nature of being both separate and unified, both a particle and a wave, both dead and alive -- and with man made climate change both real and not real. It's related to Einstein's conclusion that space and time do not exist. Dualism, or ordinary reality, a practical fiction and a naive realism. 99.9% of people experience climate change as real because it's extraordinarily rare to develop and experience higher higher states of unity-, cosmic-, god- consciousness, where everything is Self and consciousness, beyond dualism (and even beyond nondualism existence, of nonexistence). Arguably, the climate catastrophe reflects the disunity and disharmony of the collective consciousness of humanity. To paraphrase Rumi, "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a world without climate change. I'll meet you there." Aging empiricists and classical Cartesian physicists continue to deny the science of our quantum reality like how the close-minded and ignorant continue to deny the reality of our climate crisis. To reiterate, the climate crisis is real and extremely serious (and in my opinion, an existential threat to humanity's near-term survival), but it is ALSO, simultaneously, an illusion of ego- and limited- or lower-consciousness; a phenomenon that can be transcended.

Similarly, quantum physics and advanced consciousness practices has a role to play in climate adaptation and mitigation, to facilitate quantum leaps in social-environmental cooperation, healing and harmony, where consciousness can influence our inner and outer environments. It involves gaining control over innate but largely unrealized faculties of consciousness and supernormal abilities. There's a long history and worldwide distribution of shamanic weather workers and weather spirituality, which can be explained with quantum physics and realized through things like advanced meditation practices. These practices could help, for example, to alleviate catastrophic storms and droughts, or to facilitate accelerated ecosystem restoration and thus large-scale carbon sequestration. The Dalai Lama's Mind and Life Institute takes this seriously -- they accepted my proposal to present this idea to the International Symposium of Contemplative Studies.

I'm completely serious and I expect a response. But since I do admit that climate change is real, I'll accept half the reward. This is an incredibly important, legitimate, verifiable, and scientific perspective. I realize that this was not what you were looking for, and that it's outside the box, but it's accurate and meets your challenge's requirements. I will use the reward money to fund a project dealing with the application of advanced consciousness practices to climate change adaptation and mitigation, so you can have a clear conscience. You've proven your point that climate denialists do not have a legitimate position, but this transcends denalism, and actually inspires incredible hope for transformational changes and innovative solutions. Please support this. Sincerely, EPN, Esq.

You don't seem to define the exact year from which human-induced climate change should be measured, so I'm not sure it's possible to respond to this. It's too vague. Unless I've missed something (no way I was going to wade through all the comments looking for it).

You have missed something and it isn't hard to find it. The challenge isn't to prove that man made global warming isn't real, the challenge is for deniers to follow through with their claims. If you are going around saying man made global warming isn't real and you can prove it, then I am providing a venue. If you don't make that claim then this challenge isn't for you.

"I will award $1,000 of my own money to anyone that can show there is valid scientific evidence indicating man made global warming is not real. It doesn't have to prove man made global warming is not real, it just needs to be valid scientific evidence against it"

In your eyes, what constitutes "valid scientific evidence"? Do you have a hypothetical example of what that evidence would look like?

Would I have to disprove one or several central tenets of man made global warming? If so, what in your opinion are the central tenets of man made global warming?

Valid scientific evidence is something that has been peer-reviewed and shown to be valid under our understanding of science.

For this challenge, I am looking for something that has been done by scientists (not someone associated with the fossil fuel industry) that shows man made global warming is seriously questionable. I am looking for something that would make us scratch our heads and cause us to go back and reexamine our work to see what flaws there might be (something that goes on all the time, but I mean to do so with more intensity).

That is a valid question since I'm the one that made a challenge, unlike the $10,000 challenge where I simple invited people to demonstrate what they claim. I will consider something to be valid scientific evidence if it can pass peer review and stand up to investigation by the scientific community.

In that case, I refer you to the challenge posted on http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/1000-evidence-challenge-skeptical-papers.html

Does this not fulfil the requirement you have laid out?

In addition, if I can find published articles making predictions that have been shown to be false when compared to real data does that mean they no longer "stand up to investigation by the scientific community?" What then?

I updated the submission to show why I do not accept the papers as scientific evidence. In fact, I believe the majority of the scientific community would not accept their claims.

Finding papers that turned out to be incorrect is certainly not scientific evidence. I can do the same thing for medical research. Would you make the claim that we have not made medical advances because some of the papers turned out to be incorrect? One of the reasons you publish papers is so that other scientists can examine your work and determine if it is valid, or not. That is part of the scientific method.

Well, first, this is not scientific evidence that man made global warming is not real. At best, it might show that some of the warming attributed to man made greenhouse gases can be attributed to other sources, but not all.

But, I don't have access to the full paper and I don't yet know what the scientific community has to say about it. It may turn out to be correct, or it may turn out to be completely faulty.

This does not meet the requirement to present scientific evidence to show AGW is not real.

Here's an inconvenient truth for you! When a skeptic points out that there has been no warming in the past 16 years all you IPCC alarmists love to say that over 90% of the heat is going into the oceans and only 2% goes into the atmosphere and to ignore the atmosphere. Hogwash!

Without accurate OHC data you can't scientifically prove the globe has warmed since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And you don't have it! Remember 90% of the warming is going into the oceans so don't try to fall back on atmospheric 2% and extrapolate that out. It works both ways!

That is so incredibly stupid that I am tempted to just ignore you as the lunatic fringe. You're claim is that we don't have data accurate enough for you, so we have to ignore all ocean warming. I just reconsidered. I am just going to ignore you.

If I missed this submission somewhere I apologize. I have it now and will response as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - JoNova's Proof" and you can follow my progress here:

Sorry I wasn't serious - my apologies. I thought I put a smiley on it. I was being tongue in cheek about JoNova and her blog. Some other commenters have been complaining that no-one actually says they have or can disprove global warming - I presented it as an example where an anti-AGW blogger said exactly that.

Thanks for that. I treated some early submissions as jokes because I thought they were so silly - until I heard back from the submitters. Now, I take all submissions seriously, no matter how un-serious the submission. I do appreciate you pointing out how they say there is no global warming. It is becoming the next thing with deniers to rewrite history and claim no one is denying it. Or, ever has!

I have not seen any $1,000 challenge submissions which astounds me - ANY scientific evidence is a weak test compared to the $30,000 challenge. I really thought you would lose the $1,000 given all the AGW contrarian scientists and organisations in the world. It might only be a token amount of money, but the publicity would be more valuable.

I thought there was a pretty good chance, myself - hence the $1000 versus $30,000. I thought someone would come up with something to at least raise a red flag. But, so far, there has been nothing to make me think the AGW theory is at risk.